Verse 1.But a certain man. In the previous chapter, the historian
had given an account of the eminent liberality and sincerity of the mass
of early Christians, in being willing to give up their property to
provide for the poor, and had mentioned the case of Barnabas as
worthy of special attention. In this chapter he proceeds to mention
a case, quite as striking, of insincerity and hypocrisy, and of the
just judgment of God on those who were guilty of it. The case is
a remarkable instance of the nature of hypocrisy, and goes to
illustrate the art and cunning of the enemy of souls in attempting to
corrupt the church, and to pervert the religion of the gospel.
Hypocrisy consists in an attempt to imitate the people of God, or to
assume the appearance of religion, in whatever form it may be
manifested. In this case religion had been manifested by great
self-denial and benevolence. The hypocrisy of Ananias consisted in
attempting to imitate this appearance, and to impose in this way on
the early Christians and on God.

With Sapphira his wife. With her concurrence, or consent. It was a
matter of agreement between them, Acts 5:2,9.

Sold a possession. The word here used \~kthma\~ does not indicate
whether this was land or some other property. In Acts 5:3, however,
we learn that it was land that was sold; and the word here
translated possession, is translated in the Syriac, Arabic,
and the Latin Vulgate, land. The pretence for which this was sold
was doubtless to have the appearance of religion. That it was sold
could be easily known by the Christian society, but it might not be
so easily known for how much it was sold. Hence the attempt to
impose on the apostles. It is clear that they were not under obligation
to sell their property. But having sold it for the purposes of
religion, it became their duty, if they professed to devote the avails
of it to God, to do it entirely, and without any reservation.

Verse 2.And kept back. The word here used means, properly,
to separate, to part; and then it means to separatesurreptitiously or clandestinely for our own use a part of public
property, as taxes, etc. It is used ut three times in the New Testament,
Acts 5:3; Titus 2:10, where it is rendered purloining. Here it means
that they secretly kept back a part, while professedly devoting
all to God.

His wife also being privy to it. His wife knowing it, and
evidently concurring in it.

And laid it at the apostles' feet. This was evidently an act
professedly of devoting all to God. Comp. Acts 4:37,; 5:8,9.
That this was his profession, or pretence, is further implied in
the fact that Peter charges him with having lied unto God,
Acts 5:3,4.

Verse 3.But Peter said, etc. Peter could have known this only by
revelation. It was the manifest design of Ananias to deceive; nor was
there any way of detecting him but by its being revealed to him by
the Spirit of God. As it was an instance of enormous wickedness,
and as it was very important to detect and punish the crime, it was
made known to Peter directly by God.

Why hath Satan. Great deeds of wickedness in the Scripture are
traced to the influence and temptation of Satan. Compare Luke 22:3;
John 13:27. Especially is Satan called the father of lies,
John 8:44,55. Comp. Genesis 3:1-5. As this was an act of
falsehood, or an attempt to deceive, it is with great propriety
traced to the influence of Satan. The sin of Ananias consisted in his
yielding to the temptation. Nowhere in the Bible are men supposed to
be free from guilt, from the fact that they have been tempted to
commit it. God requires them to resist temptation; and if they yield
to it, they must be punished.

Filled thine heart. A man's heart or mind is full of a thing when
he is intent on it; when he is strongly impelled to it; or when he is
fully occupied with it. The expression here means, that he was
strongly impelled or excited by Satan to this crime.

To lie to. To attempt to deceive. The deception which he meant to
practise was to keep back a part of the price, while he
pretended to bring the whole of it; thus tempting God, and
supposing that he could not detect the fraud.

The Holy Ghost. \~to pneuma to agion\~. The main inquiry here is, whether the
apostle Peter intended to designate in this place the Third Person
of the Trinity; or whether he meant to speak of God as God, without
any reference to the distinction of persons; or to the Divineinfluence which inspired the apostles, without reference to the
peculiar offices which are commonly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Or, in
other words, is there a distinction here recognised between the
Father and the Holy Spirit? That there is will be apparent
from the following considerations:

(1.) If no such distinction is intended, it is remarkable that Peter
did not use the usual and customary name of God. It does not appear
why he guarded it so carefully as to denote that this offence was
committed against the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit of the Lord,
Acts 5:9.

(3.) Peter intended, doubtless, to designate an offence as committed
particularly against the Person, or Influence, by which he and the
other apostles were inspired. Ananias supposed that he could escape
detection: and the offence was one, therefore, against the Inspirer of
the apostles. Yet that was the Holy Ghost as distinct from theFather. See John 14:16,17,26; 15:26; 16:7-11; 20:22. Comp.
Acts 5:32. The offence, therefore, beeing against Him who was sent by
the Father, who was appointed to a particular work, clearly supposes
that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father.

(4.) A farther incidental proof of this may be found in the fact that
the sin here committed was one of peculiar magnitude; so great as to be
deemed worthy of the immediate and signal vengeance of God. Yet the sin
against the Holy Ghost is uniformly represented to be of this
description. Comp. Matthew 12:31,32; Mark 3:28,29. As these sins
evidently coincide in enormity, it is clear that the same class of
sins is referred to in both places; or, in other words, the sin of
Ananias was against the Third Person of the Trinity. Two remarks may be
made here.

(1.) The Holy Ghost is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son; or,
in other words, there is a distinction of some kind in the Divine
Nature that may be denominated by the word person. This is clear
from the fact that sin is said to have been committed against him;
a sin which it was supposed could not be detected. Sin cannot be
committed against an attribute of God, or an influence from God.
We cannot lie unto an attribute, or against wisdom, or power, or
goodness; nor can we lie unto an influence, merely, of the Most High.
Sin is committed against a being, not against an attribute; and as a
sin is here charged on Ananias against the Holy Ghost, it follows
that the Holy Ghost has a personal existence; or there is such a
distinction in the Divine Essence as that it may be proper to
specify a sin as committed particularly against him. In the same way
sin may be represented as committed peculiarly against the Father,
when his name is blasphemed; when his dominion is denied; when his
mercy in sending his Son is called in question. Sin may be represented
as committed against the Son, when his atonement is denied, his
Divinity assailed, his character derided, or his invitations slighted.
And thus sin may be represented as committed against the Holy Ghost,
when his office of renewing the heart, or sanctifying the soul,
is called in question, or when his work is ascribed to some malign
or other influence. See \\Mr 3:22-30\\. And as sin against the
Son proves that he is in some sense distinct from the Father,
so does sin against the Holy Ghost prove that in some sense he is
distinct from the Father and the Son.

Verse 9.Whiles it remained. As long as it remained unsold. This
place proves that there was an obligation imposed on the disciples to
sell their property. They who did it, did it voluntarily; and it does
not appear that it was done by all, or expected to be done by all.

And after it was sold, etc. Even after the property was sold,
and Ananias had the money, still there was no obligation on him to de-
vote it in this way. He had the disposal of it still. The apostle
mentions this to show him that his offence was peculiarly aggravated.
He was not compelled to sell his property; and he had not even the
poor pretence that he was obliged to dispose of it, and was tempted
to withhold it for his own use. It was all his, and might have been
retained if he had chosen.

Thou hast not lied unto men. Unto men only; or, it is not your
main and chief offence that you have attempted to deceive men.
It is true that Ananias had attempted to deceive the apostles, and it is
true also that this was a crime; but still, the principal magnitude of the
offence was that he had attempted to deceive God. So small was his
crime as committed against men, that it was lost sight of by the
apostles; and the great, crowning sin of attempting to deceive God was
brought fully into view. Thus David also saw his sin as committed
against God to be so enormous, that he lost sight of it as an offence
to man, and said, "Against thee, thee ONLY, have I sinned, and done
this evil in thy sight," Psalms 51:4.

But unto God. It has been particularly and eminently against God.
This is true, because

(1.) he had professedly devoted it to God. The act, therefore, had
express and direct reference to him.

(2.) It was an attempt to deceive him. It implied the belief of Ananias
that God would not detect the crime, or see the motives of the heart.

(3.) It is the prerogative of God to judge Of sincerity and hypocrisy;
and this was a case, therefore, which came under his special notice.
Comp. Psalms 139:1-4. The word God here is evidently used in its
plain and obvious sense, as denoting the supreme Divinity; and the
use of the word here shows that the Holy Ghost is Divine; and the
whole passage demonstrates, therefore, one of the important doctrines of
the Christian religion, that the Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father
and the Son, and yet is Divine.

Verse 5.An Ananias hearing these words, etc. Seeing that his
guilt was known; and being charged with the enormous crime of
attempting to deceive God. he had not expected to be thus exposed; and
it is clear that the exposure and the charge came upon him
unexpectedly and terribly, like a bolt of thunder.

Fell down. Greek, Having fallen down.

Gave up the ghost. This is an unhappy translation. The original
means simply, he expired, or he died. See Barnes "Matthew 27:50".
This remarkable fact may be accounted for in this way:

(1.) It is evidently to be regarded as a judgment of God for the sin
of Ananias and his wife. It was not the act of Peter, but of God; and
was clearly designed to show his abhorrence of this sin.
See Barnes "Acts 5:11".

(2.) Though it was the act of God, yet it does not follow that it was
not in connexion with the usual laws by which he governs men, or
that he did not make use of natural means to do it. The sin was one of
great aggravation. It was suddenly and unexpectedly detected. The
fact that it was known--the solemn charge that he had lied unto God
--struck him with horror, His conscience would reprove him for the
enormity of his crime, and overwhelm him at the memory of his act of
wickedness. These circumstances may be sufficient to account for this
remarkable event. It has occurred in other cases that the consciousness
of crime, or the fact of being suddenly detected, has given such a shock
to the frame that it has never recovered from it. The effect commonly
is that the memory of guilt preys secretly and silently upon the frame,
until, worn out with the want of rest and peace, it sinks exhausted into
the grave. But there have not been wanting instances where the shock
has been so great as to destroy the vital powers at once, and plunge the
wretched man, like Ananias, into eternity. It is not at all improbable
that the shock in the case of Ananias was so great as at once to take
his life.

Great fear came, etc. Such a striking and awful judgment on
insincerity and hypocrisy was fitted to excite awful emotions among the
people. Sudden death always does it; but sudden death in immediate
connexion with crime is fitted much more deeply to affect the mind.

Verse 6.And the young men. The youth of the congregation; very
probably young men who were in attendance as servants, or those whose
business it was to attend on the congregation, and perform various
offices when Christians celebrated their worship, (Mosheim.) The
word used here sometimes denotes a servant. It is used also Acts 5:10,
to denote soldiers, as they were commonly enlisted of the vigorous
and young. The fact that they took up Ananias voluntarily,
implies that they were accustomed to perform offices of servitude to
the congregation.

Wound him up. It was the usual custom with the Jews to wind the
body up in many folds of linen before it was buried; commonly also with
spices, to preserve it from putrefaction. See Barnes "John 11:44".
It may be asked why he was so soon buried; and especially why he was
hurried away without giving information to his wife. In reply to this,
it may be remarked,

(1.) that it does not appear from the narrative that it was known that
Sapphira was privy to the transaction, or was near at hand, or even that
he had a wife. Ananias came himself and offered the money; and the
judgment fell at once on him.

(2.) It was customary among the ancient Persians to bury the body almost
immediately after death, (Jahn;) and it seems probable that the Jews,
when the body was not embalmed, imitated the custom. It would also
appear that this was an ancient custom among the Jews. See
Genesis 23:19; 25:9; 35:29; 48:7; 1 Kings 13:30. Different nations
differ in their customs in burying the dead; and there is no
impropriety in committing a body soon after death to the tomb.

(3.) There might have been some danger of an excitement and tumult in
regard to this scene, if the corpse had not soon been removed; and as
no valuable purpose could be answered by delaying the burial, the body
was decently committed to the dust.

Verse 7.And it was about the space, etc. As Sapphira had been no
less guilty than her husband, so it was ordered, in the Providence of
God, that the same judgment should come upon both.

Verse 8.For so much. That is, for the sum which Ananias had
presented. This was true, that this sum had been received for it; but
it was also true that a larger sum had been received. It is as really
a falsehood to deceive in this manner, as it would have been to have
affirmed that they received much more than they actually did for
the land. Falsehood consists in making an erroneous representation
of a thing in any way for the purpose of deceiving. And this
species is much more common than an open and bold lie, declaring what is
in no sense true.

{+} "answered" "Said"

Verse 9.Agreed together. Conspired, or laid a plan. From this, it
seems that Sapphira was as guilty as her husband.

To tempt. To try; to endeavour to impose on, or to deceive; that
is, to act as if the Spirit of the Lord could not detect the crime.
They did this by trying to see whether the Spirit of God could detect
hypocrisy.

At the door. Are near at hand. They had not yet returned.
The dead were buried without the walls of cities; and this space of
three hours, it seems, had elapsed before they returned from the
burial.

Shall carry thee out. This passage shows that it was by
Divine interposition or judgment that their lives were taken. The
judgment was in immediate connexion with their crime, and was designed
as an expression of the Divine displeasure.

If it be asked here, why Ananias and Sapphira were punished in this
severe and awful manner, an answer may be found in the following
considerations:

(1.) This was an atrocious crime; a deep and dreadful act of iniquity.
It was committed knowingly, and without excuse, Acts 5:4. It was
important that sudden and exemplary punishment should follow it,
because the society of Christians was just then organized, and it was
designed that it should be a pure society, and be regarded as a body
of holy men. Much was gained by making this impression on the people,
that sin could not be allowed in this new community, but would be
detected and punished.

(2.) God has often, in a most solemn manner, showed his abhorrence of
hypocrisy and insincerity. By awful declarations and fearful judgments
he has declared his displeasure at it. In a particular manner no small
part of the preaching of the Saviour was employed in detecting the
hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, and denouncing heavy judgments
on them. See Matthew 23 throughout, for the most sublime and awful
denunciation of hypocrisy anywhere to be found. Compare Mark 12:15;
Luke 12:1; 1 Timothy 4:2; Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 20:5; 36:13; Matthew 7:5; Luke 11:44.
In the very beginning of the Christian church, therefore, it was
important, by a decided and awful act, to impress upon the church
and the world the danger and guilt of hypocrisy. Well did the Saviour
know that it would be one of the most insidious and deadly foes to the
purity of the church; and at its very threshold, therefore, he set
up this solemn warning to guard it; and laid the bodies of Ananias and
Sapphira in the path of every hypocrite that would enter the church. If
they enter and are destroyed, they cannot plead that they were not fully
warned. If they practise iniquity in the church, they cannot plead
ignorance of the fact that God intends to detect and punish them.

(3.) The apostles were just then establishing their authority. They
claimed to be under the influence of inspiration. To establish that, it
was necessary to show that they could know the views and motives of
those who became connected with the church. If easily imposed on, it
would go far to destroy their authority and their claim to
infallibility. If they showed that they could detect hypocrisy, even
where most artfully concealed, it would establish the Divine authority of
their message. At the commencement of their work, therefore, they
gave this decisive and most awful proof that they were under the
guidance of an infallible Teacher.

(4.) This case does not stand alone in the New Testament. It is clear
from other instances that the apostles had the power of punishing
sinners, and that a violation of the commands of Christ was attended by
sudden and fearful judgments. See 1 Corinthians 11:30. See the case of
Elymas the sorcerer, in Acts 13:8-11.

(5.) Neither does this event stand alone in the history of the world
Acts of judgment sometimes occur as sudden and decided, in the
Providence of God, as in this case. The profane man, the drunkard, the
profligate is sometimes as suddenly stricken down as in this instance.
Cases have not been uncommon where the blasphemer has been smitten in
death with the curse on his lips; and God often thus comes forth in
judgment to slay the wicked, and to show that there is a God that
reigns in the earth. This narrative cannot be objected to as
improbable until all such eases are disposed of; nor can this
infliction be regarded as unjust, until all the instances where men die
by remorse of conscience, or by the direct judgment of heaven, are
proved to be unjust also.

In view of this narrative, we may remark,

(1.) that God searches the heart, and knows the purposes of the soul.
Comp. Psalms 139.

(2.) God judges the motives of men. It is not so much the
external act, as it is the views and feelings by which it is
prompted, that determines the character of the act.

(3.) God will bring forth sin that man may not be able to detect; or
that may elude human justice. The day is coming when the secrets of all
hearts shall be revealed, and God will reward every man according as
his works shall be.

(4.) Fraud and hypocrisy will be detected. They are often revealed in
this life. The Providence of God often lays them open to human view,
and overwhelms the soul in shame at the guilt which was long concealed.
But if not in this life, yet the day is coming when they will be
disclosed, and the sinner shall stand revealed to an assembling
universe.

(5.) We have here an illustration of the powers of conscience. If
such was its overwhelming effect here, what will it be when all
the crimes of the life shall be disclosed in the day of judgment, and
when the soul shall sink to the woes of hell. Through eternity the
conscience shall do its office; and these terrible inflictions shall go
on from age to age, for ever and ever, in the dark world of hell.

(6.) We see here the guilt of attempting to impose on God in regard to
property. There is no subject in which men are more liable to
hypocrisy; none in which they are more apt to keep back a part.
Christians professedly devote all that they have to God. They
profess to believe that God has a right to the silver and the gold,
and the cattle on a thousand hills, Psalms 50:10. Their property,
as well as their bodies and their spirits, they have devoted to him; and
profess to desire to employ it as he shall direct and please. And yet,
is it not clear that the sin of Ananias has not ceased in the church?
How many professing Christians there are who give nothing really to God;
who contribute nothing for the poor and needy; who give nothing, or
next to nothing, to any purposes of benevolence; who would devote
"millions" for their own gratification, and their families, but not a
penny for "tribute" to God. The case of Ananias is to all such a case
of most fearful warning. And on no point should Christians more
faithfully examine themselves than in regard to the professed devotion
of their property to God. If God punished this sin in the beginning
of the Christian church, he will do it still in its progress; and in
nothing have professed Christians more to fear the wrath of God than on
this very subject.

(7.) Sinners should fear and tremble before God. He holds their breath
in his hands, he can cut them down in an instant. The bold
blasphemer, the unjust, the liar, the scoffer, he can destroy in a
moment, and sink them in all the woes of hell. Nor have they security
that he will not do it. The profane man has no evidence that he will
live to finish the curse which he has begun; nor the drunkard, that he
will again become sober; nor the seducer, that God will not arrest him
in his act of wickedness, and send him down to hell! The sinner walks
over his grave, and over hell! In an instant he may die, and be
summoned to the judgment-seat of God! How awful it is to sin in a
world like this; and how fearful the doom which must soon overtake the
ungodly.

In Solomon's porch. See Barnes " :". They were
doubtless there for the purpose of worship. It does not mean that
they were there constantly, but at the regular periods of worship.
Probably they had two designs in this; one was to join in the public
worship of God in the usual manner with the people, for they did not
design to leave the temple-service; the other was that they might have
opportunity to preach to the people assembled there. In the presence
of the great multitudes who came up to worship, they had an opportunity
of making known the doctrines of Jesus, and of confirming them by
miracles, the reality of which could not be denied, and which could not
be resisted, as proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.

Verse 13.And of the rest. Different interpretations have been
given of this expression. Lightfoot supposes that by the rest are
meant the remainder of the one hundred and twenty disciples of whom
Ananias had been one; and that they feared to put themselves on an
equality with the apostles. But this interpretation seems to be far-
fetched. Kuin”el supposes that by the rest are meant those who had
not already joined with the apostles, whether Christians or Jews, and
that they were deterred by the fate of Ananias. Priceeus, Morns,
Rosenmiiller, Schleusner, etc., suppose that by the rest are meant the
rich men, or the men of authority and influence among the Jews, of whom
Ananias was one, and that they were deterred from it by the fate of
Ananias. This is by far the most probable opinion, because

(1.) there is an evident contrast between them and the people:
the rest, i.e. the others of the rich and great, feared to join with
them; but the people, the common people, magnified them.

(2.) The fate of Ananias was fitted to have this effect on the rich and
great.

(3.) Similar instances had occurred before, that the great,
though they believed on Jesus, yet were afraid to come forth publicly
and profess him before men. See John 12:42,43; 5:44.

(4.) The phrase the rest denotes sometimes that which is more
excellent, or which is superior in value or importance to something else.
See Luke 12:26.

Join himself. Become united to, or associated with. The rich
and the great then, as now, stood aloof from them, and were deterred by
fear or shame from professing attachment to the Lord Jesus.

Verse 14.And believers. This is the name by which Christians were
designated, because one of the main things that distinguished them
was that they believed that Jesus was the Christ. It is also an
incidental proof that none should join themselves to the church who
are not believers, i.e. who do not profess to be Christians in heart
and in life.

Were the more added. The effect of all things was to increase the
number of converts. Their persecutions, their preaching, and the
judgment of God, all tended to impress the minds of the people, and to
lead them to the Lord Jesus Christ. Comp. Acts 4:4. Though the
judgment of God had the effect of deterring hypocrites from entering
the church, though it produced awe and caution, yet still the number of
true converts was increased. An effort to keep the church pure by
wholesome discipline, by cutting off unworthy members, however rich or
honoured, so far from weakening its true strength, has a tendency
greatly to increase its numbers as well as its purity. Men will not
seek to enter a corrupt church; or regard it as worth any thought to
be connected with a society that does not endeavour to be pure.

Verse 15.Insomuch. So that. This should be connected with
Acts 5:12. Many miracles were wrought by the apostles, insomuch, etc.

They brought forth. The people, or the friends of the sick, brought
them forth.

Beds. \~klinwn\~. This word denotes usually the soft and
valuable beds on which the rich commonly lay. And it means that
the rich, as well as the poor, were laid in the path of Peter and the
other apostles.

The shadow of Peter. That is, they were laid in the path so that
the shadow of Peter, as he walked, might pass over them. Perhaps the
sun was near setting, and the lengthened shadow of Peter might be
thrown afar across the way. They were not able to approach him on
account of the crowd; and they imagined that if they could
any how come under his influence, they might be healed. The sacred
writer does not say, however, that any were healed in this way; nor that
they were commanded to do this. He simply states the impression
which was on the minds of the people that it might be. Whether they
were healed by this, it is left for us merely to conjecture. An instance
somewhat similar is recorded in Acts 19:12, where it is expressly
said, that the sick were healed by contact with handkerchiefs and
aprons that were brought from the body of Paul. Comp. also
Matthew 9:21,22, where the woman said respecting Jesus, "If I may but
touch his garment, I shall be whole."

Might overshadow. That his shadow might pass over them. Though
there is no evidence that any were healed in this way, yet it shows the
full belief of the people that Peter had the power of working miracles.
Peter was supposed by them to be eminently endowed with this power,
because it was by him that the lame man in the temple had been healed,
Acts 3:4-6, and because he had been most prominent in his
addresses to the people. The persons who are specified in this verse
were those who dwelt at Jerusalem.

{1} "into the streets" "in every street"

Verse 16.There came also, etc. Attracted by the fame of Peter's
miracles, as the people formerly had been by the miracles of the Lord
Jesus.

Vexed. Troubled, afflicted, or tormented.

Unclean spirits. Possessed with devils; called unclean because they
prompted to sin and impurity of life. See Barnes " :".

And they were healed. Of these persons it is expressly affirmed that
they were healed. Of those who were so laid as that the shadow of Peter
might pass over them, there is no such affirmation.

Verse 17.Then the High Priest. Probably Caiaphas. Comp.
John 11:49. It seems from this place that he belonged to the sect of
the Sadducees. It is certain that he had signalized himself by
opposition to the Lord Jesus and to his cause, constantly.

Rose up. This expression is sometimes redundant, and at others
it means simply to begin to do a thing, or to resolve to do it. Comp.
Luke 15:18.

And all they that were with him. That is, all they that
coincided with him in doctrine or opinion; or, in other words, that
portion of the sanhedrim that was composed of Sadducees. There
was a strong party of Sadducees in the sanhedrim; and perhaps at
this time it was so strong a majority as to be able to control its
decisions. Comp. Acts 23:6.

Which is the sect. The word translated sect here is that from
which we have derived our word heresy. It means simply sect,
or party, and is not used in a bad sense, as implying reproach, or even
error. The idea which we attach to it of error, and of denying
fundamental doctrines in religion, is one that does not occur in the
New Testament.

Sadducees. See Barnes "Matthew 3:7". The main doctrine of this sect
was the denial of the resurrection of the dead. The reason why they
were particularly opposed to the apostles, rather than the Pharisees, was
that the apostles dwelt much on the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
which, if true, completely overthrew their doctrine. All the converts,
therefore, that were made to Christianity, tended to diminish their
numbers and influence; and also to establish the belief of the
Pharisees in the doctrine of the resurrection. So long, therefore,
as the effect of the labours of the apostles was to establish one of the
main doctrines of the Pharisees, and to confute the Sadducees,
so long we may suppose that the Pharisees would either favour them or
be silent; and so long the Sadducees would be opposed to them, and
enraged against them. One sect will often see with composure the progress
of another that it really hates, if it will humble a rival. Even
opposition to the gospel will sometimes be silent, provided the spread
of religion will tend to humble and mortify those against whom we may be
opposed.

Were filled with indignation. Greek, Zeal. The word denotes any
kind of fervour or warmth, and may be applied to any warm or violent
affection of the mind, either envy, wrath, zeal, or love,
Acts 13:45; John 2:17; Romans 10:2; 2 Corinthians 7:7; 11:2. Here it probably
includes envy and wrath. They were envious at the success of the
apostles; at the number of converts that were made to a doctrine that
they hated; they were envious that the Pharisees were deriving such
an accession of strength to their doctrine of the resurrection; and they
were indignant that they regarded so little their authority, and
disobeyed the solemn injunction of the sanhedrim. Compare Acts 4:18-21.

Verse 19.But the angel of the Lord. This does not denote any
particular angel, but simply an angel. The article is not used
in the original. The word angel denotes, properly, a messenger, and
particularly it is applied to the pure spirits that are sent to this
world on errands of mercy. See Barnes "Matthew 1:20". The case here was
evidently a miracle. An angel was employed for this special
purpose; and the design might have been,

(1.) to reprove the Jewish rulers, and to convince them of their guilt
in resisting the gospel of God;

(2.) to convince the apostles more firmly of the protection and
approbation of God;

(3.) to encourage them more and more in their work, and in the
faithful discharge of their high duty; and,

(4.) to give the people a new and impressive proof of the truth of the
message which they bore. That they were imprisoned would be known to
the people. That they were made as secure as possible was also known.
When, therefore, the next morning, before they could have been tried or
acquitted, they were found again in the temple, delivering the same
message still, it was a new and striking proof that they were sent by
God.

Verse 20.In the temple. In a public and conspicuous place. In this
way there would be a most striking exhibition of their boldness; a
proof that God had delivered them; and a manifestation of their
purpose to obey God rather than man.

All the words. All the doctrines. Comp. John 6:68, "Thou hast
the words of eternal life."

Of this life. Pertaining to life, to the eternal life which they
taught through the resurrection and life of Jesus. The word life is
used sometimes to express the whole of religion, as opposed to the
spiritual death of sin. See John 1:4; 3:36. Their deliverance
from prison was not that they might be idle, and escape to a place
of safety. Again they were to engage at once in the toils and perils
which they had just before encountered. God delivers us from danger
sometimes, that we may plunge into new dangers; he preserves
us from calamity, that we may be tried in some new furnace of
affliction; and he calls us to encounter trials simply because he
demands it, and as an expression of gratitude to him for his gracious
interposition.

Verse 21.Early in the morning. Greek, At the break of day. Comp.
Luke 24:1; John 8:2.

Called the council together. The sanhedrim, or the great council of
the nation. This was clearly for the purpose of trying the apostles for
disregarding their commandments.

And all the senate. Greek, Eldership. Probably these were not a
part of the sanhedrim, but were men of age and experience, who
(in Acts 4:8; 25:15) are called elders of the Jews, and who were
present for the sake of counsel and advice in a case of emergency.

Verse 23.Found we shut. It had not been broken open; and there was
therefore clear proof that they had been delivered by the
interposition of God. Nor could they have been released by the guard, for
they were keeping watch, as if unconscious that anything had happened,
and the officers had the only means of entering the prison.

Doubted of them. They were in perplexity about these things. The word
rendered doubted denotes that state of anxiety which arises when a
man has lost his way, or when he does not know what to do to escape
from a difficulty. See Luke 9:7.

Whereunto this would grow. What this would be; or what would
be the result or end of these events. For,

(1.) their authority was disregarded;

(2.) God had opposed them by a miracle;

(3.) the doctrines of the apostles were gaining ground;

(4.) Their efforts to oppose themhad been in vain. They need
not have doubted; but sinners are not disposed to be convinced
of the truth of religion.

{h} "and captain of the temple" Acts 4:1{*} "this would grow" "what this would become"

Verse 25. No notes from Barnes on this verse.

Verse 26.Without violence. Not by force; not by binding them. Comp.
Matthew 27:22. The command of the sanhedrim was sufficient to
secure their presence, as they did not intend to refuse to answer for
any alleged violation of the laws. Besides, their going before the
council would give them another noble opportunity to bear witness
to the truth of the gospel. Christians, when charged with a violation of
the laws of the land, should not refuse to answer. Acts 25:11,
"If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of
death, I refuse not to die." It is a part of our religion to yield
obedience to all the just laws of the land, and to evince respect for
all that are in authority, Romans 13:1-7.

For they feared the people. The people were favourable to the
apostles. If violence had been attempted, or they had been taken in a
cruel and forcible manner, the consequence would have been a tumult and
bloodshed. In this way, also, the apostles showed that they were not
disposed to excite tumult. Opposition by them would have excited
commotion; and though they would have been rescued, yet they resolved
to show that they were not obstinate, contumacious, or rebellious, but were
disposed, as far as it could be done with a clear conscience, to yield
obedience to the laws of the land.

Verse 28.Straitly command you. Did we not command you with a
threat? Acts 4:17,18,21.

In this name. In the name of Jesus.

Ye have filled Jerusalem. This, though not so designed, was an
honourable tribute to the zeal and fidelity of the apostles. When
Christians are arraigned or persecuted, it is well if the only charge
which their enemies can bring against them is that they have been
distinguished for zeal and success in propagating their religion. See
1 Peter 4:16, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be
ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." Also Acts 5:13-15.

Intend to bring this man's blood upon us. To bring one's blood
upon another is a phrase denoting to hold or to prove him guilty of
murdering the innocent. The expression here charges them with
designing to prove that they had put Jesus to death when he was
innocent; to convince the people of this, and thus to enrage them
against the sanhedrim; and also to prove that they were guilty, and
were exposed to the Divine vengeance for having put the Messiah
to death. Comp. Acts 2:23,36; 3:15; 7:52. That the apostles
did intend to charge them with being guilty of murder, is clear;
but it is observable that on this occasion they had said nothing of
this; and it is further observable that they did not charge it on
them except in their presence. See the places just referred to. They
took no pains to spread this among the people, except as the peoplewere necessary to the crime of the rulers, Acts 2:23,36. Their
consciences were not at ease, and the remembrance of the death of
Jesus would occur to them at once at the sight of the apostles.

Hanged on a tree. That is, on the cross, Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24;
Acts 10:39; 13:29. This is the amount of Peter's defence. He begins
with the great principle, (Acts 5:29,) which they could not gainsay,
that God ought to be obeyed rather than man. He then proceeds to
state that they were convinced that God had raised up Jesus from
the dead. And as they had such decisive evidence of that, and
were commanded by the authority of the Lord Jesus to be witnessesof that, and had constant evidence that God had done it, they were
not at liberty to be silent. They were bound to obey God rather
than the sanhedrim, and to make known eerywhere the fact that
the Lord Jesus was risen. The remark that God had raised up
Jesus, whom they had slain, does not seem to have been made to
irritate or to reproach them, but mainly to identify the person that
had been raised. It was also a confirmation of the truth and reality
of the miracle. Of his death they had no doubt, for they had been
at pains to certify it, John 19:31-34. It is certain, however, that
Peter did not shrink from charging on them their guilt; nor was he
at any pains to soften or mitigate the severe charge that they
had murdered their own Messiah.

To be a Prince. \~archgon\~, See Barnes "Acts 3:16". In that place
he is called "the Prince of life." Here it means that he is actually
in the exercise of the office of a Prince or a King, at the right
hand of his Father. The title Prince, or King, was one which
was well known as applied to the Messiah. It denotes that he has
dominion and power, especially the power which is needful to
give repentance and the pardon of sins.

To give repentance. The word repentance here is equivalent to
reformation, and a change of life. The expression here does not differ
from what is said in Acts 3:26.

To Israel. This word properly denotes the Jews; but his office
was not to be confined to the Jews. Other passages show that it would
be also extended to the Gentiles. The reasons why the Jews are
particularly specified here are, probably,

(1.) because the Messiah was long promised to the Jewish people, and his
first work was there; and,

(2,) because Peter was addressing Jews, and was particularly
desirous of leading them to'repentance.

Forgiveness of sins. Pardon of sin; the act which can be performed
by God only, Mark 2:7.

If it be asked in what sense the Lord Jesus gives repentance, or how
his exaltation is connected with it, we may answer,

(1.) His exaltation is evidence that his work was accepted, and
thus a foundation is laid by which repentance is available, and may
be connected with pardon. Unless there was some way of forgiveness,
sorrow for sin would be of no value, even if exercised. The relentings
of a culprit condemned for murder would be of no avail, unless the
executive can consistently pardon him; nor would relentings in hell
be of avail, for there is no promise of forgiveness. But Jesus Christ by
his death has laid a foundation by which repentance may be accepted.

(2.) He is entrusted with all power in heaven and earth with
reference to this, to apply his work to men; or, in other words, to
bring them to repentance. See John 17:2; Matthew 28:18.

(3.) His exaltation is immediately connected with the bestowment of the
Holy Spirit, by whose influence men are brought to repentance,
John 16:7-11. The Spirit is represented as being sent by him as
well as by the Father, John 15:26; 16:7.

(4.) Jesus has power in this state of exaltation over all things that
can affect the mind. He sends his ministers; he directs the events of
sickness or disappointment, of health or prosperity, that will
influence the heart. There is no doubt that he can so recall the sins
of the past life, and refresh the memory, as to overwhelm the soul in
the consciousness of guilt. Thus also he can appeal to man by his
goodness, and by a sense of his mercies; and especially he can so
present a view of his life and death as to affect the heart, and show
the evil of the past life of the sinner. Knowing the heart, he knows
all the avenues by which it can be approached; and in an instant he can
overwhelm the soul with the remembrance of crime.

It was proper that the power of pardon should be lodged with
the same Being that has the power of producing repentance. Because,

(1.) the one appropriately follows the other.

(2.) They are parts of the same great work, the work which the Saviour
came to do, to remove sin with all its effects from the human soul.
This power of pardon Jesus exercised when he was on the earth; and
this he can now dispense in the heavens, Mark 2:9-11.

And from this we may learn,

(1.) that Jesus Christ is Divine. It is a dictate of natural
religion that none can forgive sins against God, but God himself. None
can pardon but the Being who has been offended. And this is also the
dictate of the Bible. The power of pardoning sin is one that God
claims as his prerogative; and it is clear that it can appertain to
no other. See Isaiah 43:25; Daniel 9:9; Psalms 130:4. Yet Jesus
Christ exercised this power when on earth; gave evidence that the
exercise of that power was one that was acceptable to God by working
a miracle, and removing the consequences of sin with which God had
visited the sinner, (Matthew 9:6;) and exercises it still in heaven. He
must, therefore, be Divine.

(2.) The sinner is dependent on him for the exercise of repentance
and forgiveness.

(3.) The proud sinner must be humbled at his feet. He must be willing
to come and receive eternal life at his hands. No step is more
humUiating than this for proud and hardened men; and there is none
which they are more reluctant to do. We always shrink from coming into
the presence of one whom we have offended; we are extremely reluctant
to confess a fault; but it must be done, or the soul must be
lost for ever.

(4.) Christ has power to pardon the greatest offender. He is
exalted for this purpose; and he is fitted to his work. Even his
murderers he could pardon; and no sinner need fear that he who is a
Prince and a Saviour at the right hand of God is unable to pardon
every sin. To him we may come with confidence; and when pressed with the
consciousness of the blackest crimes, and when we must feel that we
deserve eternal death, we may confidently roll all on his arm.

Of these things. Particularly of the resurrection of the Lord
Jesus, and of the events which had followed it. Perhaps, however, he
meant to include everything pertaining to the life, teachings, and
death of the Lord Jesus.

And so is also, etc. The descent of the Holy Ghost to endow them
with remarkable gifts, (Acts 2:1-4,) to awaken and convert such a
multitude, (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14,) was an unanswerable attestation of
the truth of these doctrines, and of the Christian religion. So
manifest and decided was the presence of God attending them, that
they could have no doubt that what they said was true; and so open
and public was this attestation, that it was an evidence to all the
people of the truth of their doctrine.

Verse 33.When they heard that. That which the apostle Peter had
said; to wit, that they were guilty of murder; that Jesus was raised
up; and that he stir lived as the Messiah.

They were cut to the heart. The word used here properly denotes to
cut with a saw; and as applied to the mind, it means, to be
agitated with rage and indignation, as if wrath should seize
upon the mind as a saw does upon wood, and tear it violently, or
agitate it severely. It is commonly used in connexion with the
heart; and means that the heart is violently agitated, and rent
with rage. See Acts 7:54. It is not used elsewhere in the New
Testament. The reasons why they were thus indignant were, doubtless,

(1.) because the apostles had disregarded their command;

(2.) because they charged them with murder;

(3.) because they affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus,
and thus tended to overthrow the sect of the Sadducees. The effect of
the doctrines of the gospel is, often, to make men enraged.

Took counsel. The word rendered took counsel denotes, commonly,
to will; then, to deliberate; and, sometimes, to decree, or
to determine. It doubtless implies here that their minds were made
up to do it; but probably the formal decree was not passed to put them
to death.

A Pharisee. The high priest and those who had been most active in
opposing the apostles were Sadducees. The Pharisees were opposed to
them particularly on the doctrine in regard to which the apostles were
so strenuous, the resurrection of the dead. See Barnes "Matthew 3:7".
Comp. Acts 23:6.

Gamaliel. This name was very common among the Jews. Dr. Lightfoot
says, that this man was the teacher of Paul, (Acts 22:3,) the son of
the Simon who took the Saviour in his arms, (Luke 2) and the
grandson of the famous Hillel, and was known among the Jews by the
title of Rabban Gamaliel the elder. There were other men of this name,
who were also eminent among the Jews. This man is said to have died
eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem; and he died as he
had lived, a Pharisee. There is not the least evidence that he was a
friend of the Christian religion; but he was evidently a man of far
more liberal views than the other members of the sanhedrim.

A doctor of the law. That is, a teacher of the Jewish law; one
whose province it was to interpret the laws of Moses, and probably
to preserve and transmit the traditional laws of the Jews.
See Barnes "Matthew 15:3". So celebrated was he, that Saul of Tarsus went
to Jerusalem to receive the benefit of his instructions, Acts 22:3.

Had in reputation among all the people. Honoured by all the
people. His advice was likely, therefore, to be respected.

To put the apostles forth. This was done doubtless, because, if the
apostles had been suffered to remain, it was apprehended that they
would take fresh courage, and be confirmed in their purposes. It was
customary, besides, when they deliberated, to command those accused
to retire, Acts 4:15.

{d} "a doctor of the law" Acts 22:3{&} "a little space" "To send the apostles our for a short time"

Verse 35. No Barnes text on this verse.

{*} "touching" "with respect to"

Verse 36.For before these days. The advice of Gamaliel was to suffer
these men to go on. The arguments by which he enforced his advice
were,

(1.) that there were cases or precedents in point,
(Acts 5:36,37;) and,

(2.) that if it should turn out to be of God, it would be a solemn
affair to be involved in the consequences of opposing him. How
long before those days this transaction occurred cannot now be
determined, as it is not certain to what case Gamaliel refers.

Rose up. That is, commenced or excited an insurrection.

Theudas, This was a name quite common among the Jews. Of this man
nothing more is known than is here recorded. Josephus (Antiq. b. xx.
chap. v.) mentions one Theudas, in the time of Fadus the
procurator of Judea, in the reign of the emperor Claudius, (A.D. 45 or
46,) who persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects
with him, and follow him to the river Jordan. He told them he was
a prophet, and that he would divide the river, and lead them over.
Fadus, however, came suddenly upon them, and slew many of them.
Theudas was taken alive, and conveyed to Jerusalem, and there
beheaded. But this occurred at least ten or fifteen years after this
discourse of Gamaliel. Many efforts have been made to reconcile
Luke and Josephus, on the supposition that they refer to the same
man. Lightfoot supposed that Josephus had made an error in chronology.
But there is no reason to suppose that there is reference to
the same event; and the fact that Josephus has not recorded the
insurrection referred to by Gamaliel, does not militate at all against
the account in the Acts. For

(1.) Luke, for anything that appears to the contrary, is quite as
credible an historian as Josephus.

(2.) The name Theudas was a common name among the Jews; and there
is no improbability that there were two leaders of an insurrection of
this name. If it is improbable, the improbability would affect
Josephus's credit as much as that of Luke.

(3.) It is altogether improbable that Gamaliel should refer to a case
which was not well authenticated; and that Luke should record a speech
of this kind unless it was delivered, when it would be so easy to
detect the error.

(4.) Josephus has recorded many instances of insurrection and revolt.
He has represented the country as in an unsettled state, and by no
means professes to give an account of all that occurred. Thus he
says, (Antiq. xvii. x. . 4,) that there were "at this time
ten thousand other disorders in Judea;" and (&8) that "Judea was
full of robberies." When this Theudas lived cannot be ascertained;
but as Gamaliel mentions him before Judas of Galilee, it is probable
that he lived not far from the time that our Saviour was born--at a time
when many false prophets appeared, claiming to be the Messiah.

Boasting himself to be somebody. Claiming to be an eminent prophet
probably, or the Messiah.

Obeyed him. The word used here is the one commonly used to denote
belief. As many as believed on him, or gave credit to his
pretensions.

{1} "these days" "In the third year before the account called A. D."{2} "obeyed" "believed"

Verse 37.Judas of Galilee. Josephus has given an account of this
man, (Antiq. b. xvii. chap. x. . 5,) and calls him a Galilean.
He afterwards calls him a Gualonite, and says he was of the city of
Gamala, (Antiq. xviii, i. 1.) In this place, he says that the revolt
took place under Cyrenius, a Roman senator, who came into "Syria to
be judge of that nation, and to take account of their substance."
"Moreover," says he, "Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now
added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance,
and to dispose of Archelaus's money." "Yet Judas taking with him Saddouk,
a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt,
who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction
to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty," etc.
This revolt, he says, was the commencement of the series of revolts
and calamities that terminated in the destruction of the city, temple,
and nation.

In the days of the taxing. Or, rather, the enrolling, or the
census. Josephus says, it was designed to take an account of their
substance. Comp. Luke 2:1,2.

Verse 38.Refrain from these men. Cease to oppose them, or to
threaten them. The reason why he advised this, he immediately adds:
that if it were of men, it would come to nought; if of God, they could
not overthrow it.

This counsel. This plan, or purpose. If the apostles had originated
it for the purposes of imposture.

It will come to nought. Gamaliel inferred that from the two
instances which he specified. They had been suppressed without the
interference of the sanhedrim; and he inferred that this would also
die away if it was a human device. It will be remembered that this is the
mere advice of Gamaliel, who was not inspired; and that this opinion
should not be adduced to guide us, except as it was an instance of
great shrewdness and prudence. It is, doubtless, right to oppose
error in the proper way and with the proper temper--not with arms, or
vituperation, or with the civil power, but with argument and kind
entreaty. But the sentiment of Gamaliel is full of wisdom in regard to
error. For,

(1.) the very way to exalt error into notice, and to confirm men in it,
is to oppose it in a harsh, authoritative, and unkind manner.

(2.) Error, if left alone, will often die away itself. The interest of
men in it will often cease as soon as it ceases to be opposed; and
having nothing to fan the flame, it will expire. It is not so with
truth.

(3.) In this respect the remark may be applied.to the Christian
religion. It has stood too long, and in too many circumstances of
prosperity and adversity, to be of men. It has been subjected to all
trials from its pretended friends and real foes; and it still lives as
vigorous and flourishing as ever. Other kingdoms have changed; empires
have risen and fallen since Gamaliel spoke this; systems of opinion and
belief have had their day, and expired; but the preservation of the
Christian religion, unchanged through so many revolutions, and in so
many fiery trials, shows that it is not of men, but of God. The
argument for the Divine origin of the Christian religion from its
perpetuity, is one that can be applied to no other system that has
been, or that now exists. For Christianity has been opposed in every
form. It confers no temporal conquests, and appeals to no base and
strong native passions. Mohammedanism is supported by the sword and
the state; paganism relies on the arm of the civil power and the
terrors of superstition, and is sustained by all the corrupt passions
of men; atheism and infidelity have been short-lived, varying in their
forms--dying today, and tomorrow starting up in a new form--never
organized, consolidated, or pure, and never tending to promote the
peace or happiness of men. Christianity, without arms or human power,
has lived, holding its steady and triumphant movements among men,
regardless alike of the opposition of its foes, and of the treachery of
its pretended friends. If the opinion of Gamaliel was just, it is from
God; and the Jews particularly should regard as important an argument
derived from the opinion of one of the wisest of their ancient
Rabbins.

Verse 39.But if it be of God. If God is the Author of this
religion. From this it seems that Gamaliel supposed that it was at least
possible that this religion was Divine. He evinced a far more candid
mind than did the rest of the Jews; but still it does not appear that
he was entirely convinced. The arguments which could not but
stagger the Jewish sanhedrim, were those drawn from the resurrection of
Jesus, the miracle on the day of Pentecost, the healing of the
lame man in the temple, and the release of the apostles from the
prison.

Ye can not overthrow it. Because

(1) God has almighty power, and can execute his purposes;

(2.) because he is unchanging, and will not be diverted from his plans,
Job 23:13,14. The plan which God forms must be accomplished. All
the devices of man are feebleness when opposed to him, and he can dash
them in pieces in an instant. The prediction of Gamaliel has been
fulfilled. Men have opposed Christianity in every way, but in vain. They
have reviled it; have persecuted it; have resorted to argument and to
ridicule, to fire, and fagot, and sword; they have called in the aid of
science; but all has been in vain. The more it has been crushed, the
more it has risen, and still exists with as much life and power as
ever. The preservation of this religion amidst so much and so varied
opposition, proves that it is of God. No severer trial can await it than
it has already experienced; and as it has survived so many storms and
trials, we have every evidence that, according to the predictions, it is
destined to live, and to fill the world. See Barnes "Matthew 16:18";
Isaiah 54:17; 55:11; Daniel 4:35.

Lest. That is, if you continue to oppose it, you may be found to
have been opposing God.

Haply. Perhaps. In the Greek this is lest at any time; that is,
at some future time, when too late to retract your doings, etc.

Ye be found. It shall appear that you have been opposing God.

Even to fight against God. Greek, \~yeomacoi\~. The word occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament. To fight against God is to oppose him, or to
maintain an attitude of hostility against him. It is an attitude that
is most fearful in its character, and will most certainly be attended
with an overthrow. No condition can be more awful than such an
opposition to the Almighty; no overthrow more terrible than that
which must follow such opposition. Comp. Acts 9:5; 23:9.
Opposition to the gospel, in the Scriptures, is uniformly regarded as
opposition to God, Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23. Men may be said
to fight against God in the following ways, or on the following
subjects:

(1.) When they oppose his gospel, its preaching, its plans, its
influence among men; when they endeavour to prevent its spread, or to
withdraw their families and friends from its influence.

(2.) When they oppose the doctrines of the Bible. When they become
angry that the real truths of religion are preached; and suffer
themselves to be irritated and excited, by an unwillingness
that those doctrines should be true, and should be presented to men.
Yet this is no uncommon thing. Men by nature do not love those doctrines,
and they are often indignant that they are preached. Some of the most
angry feelings which men ever have arise from this source; and man can
never find peace until he is willing that God's truth should exert its
influence on his own soul, and rejoice that it is believed and loved by
others.

(3.) Men oppose the law of God. It seems to them too stern and
harsh. It condemns them; and they are unwilling that it should be
applied to them. There is nothing which a sinner likes less than he
does the pure and holy law of God.

(4.) Sinners fight against the providence of God. When he
afflicts them, they rebel. When he takes away their health, or
property, or friends, they murmur. They esteem him harsh and cruel;
and, instead of finding peace by submission, they greatly aggravate
their sufferings, and infuse a mixture of wormwood and gall into the
cup, by murmuring and repining. There is no peace in affliction but in
the feeling that God is right. And until this belief is cherished,
the wicked will be like the troubled sea, which cannot rest, whose waters
cast up mire and dirt, Isaiah 57:20. Such opposition to God is as
wicked as it is foolish. The Lord gave, and has a right to remove our
comforts; and we should be still, and know that he is God.

(5.) Sinners fight against God when they resist the influences of his
Spirit; when they oppose serious thoughts; when they seek evil or gay
companions and pleasures rather than submit to God; and when they
resist all the entreaties of their friends to become Christians. All
these may be the appeals which God is making to men to be prepared to
meet him. And yet it is common for sinners thus to stifle conviction,
and refuse even to think of their eternal welfare. Nothing can be an
act of more direct and deliberate wickedness and folly than this.
Without the aid of the Holy Spirit none can be saved; and to resist his
influences is to put away the only prospect of eternal life. To do it,
is to do it over the grave; not knowing that another hour or day may be
granted; and not knowing that, if life is prolonged, the Spirit will
ever strive again with the heart.

In view of this verse we may remark,

(1.) that the path of wisdom is to submit at once to all the
requirements of God. Without this, we must expect conflicts with
him, and perils and ruin. No man can be opposed to God without
endangering himself every minute.

(2.) Submission to God should be entire. It should extend to every
doctrine and demand; every law, and every act of the Almighty. In all
his requirements, and in all afflictions, we should submit to him, and
thus only shall we find peace.

(3.) Infidels and scoffers will gain nothing by opposing God. They
have thus far been thwarted and unsuccessful; and they will be still.
None of their plans have succeeded; and the hope of destroying the
Christian religion, after the efforts of almost two thousand years,
must be vain, and will recoil with tremendous vengeance on those who
make them.

Verse 40.And to him they agreed. Greek, They were persuaded by
him; or they trusted to him. They agreed only so far as their design
of putting them to death was concerned. They abandoned that design.
But they did not comply with his advice to let them entirely alone.

And beaten them. The usual amount of lashes which were inflicted on
offenders was thirty-nine, 2 Corinthians 11:24. Beating, or
whipping, was a common mode of punishing minor offences among the
Jews. It was expressly foretold by the Saviour that the apostles would
be subjected to this, Matthew 10:17. The reason why they did not adopt
the advice of Gamaliel altogether, doubtless was, that if they did,
they feared that their authority would be despised by the people.
They had commanded them not to preach; they had threatened them,
(Acts 4:18; 5:28;) they had imprisoned them, (Acts 5:18;) and now,
if they suffered them to go without even the appearance of punishment,
their authority, they feared, would be despised by the nation, and it would
be supposed that the apostles had triumphed over the sanhedrim. It is
probable, also, that they were so indignant, that they could not suffer
them to go without the gratification of subjecting them to the public
odium of a whipping. Men, if they cannot accomplish their full
purposes of malignity against the gospel, will take up with even some
petty annoyance and malignity, rather than let it alone.

Verse 41.Rejoicing. Nothing to most men would seem more
disgraceful than a public whipping. It is a punishment inflicted usually
not so much because it gives pain, as because it is esteemed to be
attended with disgrace. The Jewish rulers, doubtless, desired that
the apostles might be so affected with the sense of this disgrace as
to be unwilling to appear again in public, or to preach the gospel
any more. Yet in this they were disappointed. The effect was
just the reverse. If it be asked why they rejoiced in this manner,
we may reply,

(1.) because they were permitted thus to imitate the example of the
Lord Jesus. He had been scourged and reviled, and they were glad that
they were permitted to be treated as he was. Comp. Philippians 3:10;
Colossians 1:24; 1 Peter 4:13, "Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of
Christ's sufferings."

(2.) Because, by this, they had evidence that they were the friends and
followers of Christ. It was clear they were engaged in the same cause
that he was; enduring the same sufferings; and striving to advance
the same interests. As they loved the cause, therefore they would
rejoice in enduring even the shame and sufferings which the cause of
necessity involved. The kingdom of the Redeemer was an object so
transcendantly important, that for it they were willing to endure
all the afflictions and disgrace which it might involve.

(4.) Religion appears to a Christian so excellent and
lovely, that he is willing, for its sake, to endure trial, and
persecution, and death. With all this, it is infinite gain; and we
should be willing to endure these trials, if, by them, we may gain a
crown of glory. Comp. Mark 10:30.

(5.) Christians are the professed friends of Christ. We showy
attachment for friends by being willing to suffer for them; to bear
contempt and reproach on their account; and to share their
persecutions, sorrows, and calamities.

(6.) The apostles were engaged in a cause of innocence, truth, and
benevolence. They had done nothing of which to be ashamed; and they
rejoiced, therefore, in a conscience void of offence, and in the
consciousness of integrity and benevolence. When other men disgracethemselves by harsh, or vile, or opprobrious language or conduct
towards us, we should not feel that the disgrace belongs to us. It is
theirs; and we should not be ashamed or distressed, though their rage
should fall on us. See 1 Peter 4:14-16.

Counted worthy. Esteemed to be deserving. That is, esteemed
fit for it by the sanhedrim. It does not mean that God esteemed
them worthy, but that the Jewish council judged them fit to suffer shame
in this cause. They evinced so much zeal and determination of purpose,
that they were judged fit objects to be treated as the Lord Jesus had
himself been.

To suffer shame. To be dishonoured or disgraced in the estimation
of the Jewish rulers. The particular disgrace to which reference is
made here was whipping. To various other kinds of shame they were
also exposed. They were persecuted, reviled, and finally put to death.
Here we may remark, that a profession of the Christian religion has been
in all ages esteemed by many to be a disgrace. The reasons are,

(1.) that Jesus is himself despised;

(2.) that his precepts are opposed to the gaiety and follies of the
world;

(3.) that it attacks that on which the men of the world pride
themselves--rank, wealth, fashion;

(4.) that it requires a spirit which the world esteems mean and
grovelling-- meekness, humility, self-denial, patience, forgiveness of
injuries; and,

(5.) that it requires duties--prayer, praise, seriousness,
benevolence-which the men of the world despise. All these things the
world
esteem degrading and mean; and hence they endeavour to subject those
who practise them to disgrace. The kinds of disgrace to which
Christians have been subjected are too numerous to be mentioned here.
In former times they were subjected to the loss of property, of
reputation, and to all the shame of public punishment, and to the
terrors of the dungeon, the stake, or the rack. One main design of
persecution was to select a kind of punishment so disgraceful as to
deter others from professing religion. Disgrace even yet may attend
it. It may subject one to the ridicule of friends--of even a father,
mother, or brother. Christians hear their opinions abused; their names
vilified; their Bible travestied; the name of their God profaned, and
of their Redeemer blasphemed. Their feelings are often wantonly and
rudely torn by the cutting sarcasm, or the bitter sneer. Books and
songs revile them; their peculiarities are made the occasion of
indecent merriment on the stage and in novels; and in this way they are
still subjected to shame for the name of Jesus. Every one who becomes a
Christian should remember that this is a part of his inheritance, and
should not esteem it dishonourable to be treated as his Master was
before him, John 15:18-20; Matthew 10:25.